METACOLLECTING AND USE OF “COLLECTION-OBJECTS” IN PROSOPOGRAPHICAL STUDIES OF METEORITE COLLECTIONS

Arnaud MIGNAN1

1 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Institute of Geophysics, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland

Abstract: This essay examines the concept of metacollecting in the context of prosopographical studies. Using meteorite collection as a study case, it demonstrates the need for the development of a comprehensive collection attribute database, which does not only include collectors’ names but also forensic information, such as the handwriting style and printing process used in the production of labels, inventory numbers, etc. After a description of a pilot prosopography study on the history of meteorite collecting, the concept of “collection-objects” is introduced and a socio-historical collection index (SHCI) is proposed to help curators determine SHCI) is proposed to help curators determine SHCIthe socio-historical a priori value of a meteorite specimen in disregard of its scientific or monetary value. A high a priori value of a meteorite specimen in disregard of its scientific or monetary value. A high a priori SHCI often SHCI often SHCIrepresents a factual chain-of-custody, which can be used as input in prosopography.

Keywords: collection, prosopography, history, curation, forensics.

MeteoritesVol. 4, Nos. 1–2, 2016, 11–22

www.meteorites.pwr.wroc.plDOI 10.5277/met160102

Corresponding author: Arnaud MIGNAN, arnaud.mignan@sed.ethz.ch

INTRODUCTION

Meteorites are fascinating objects, they may be valued for their high scientific value, aesthetic qualities, his-toric impact and other intangible qualities that make them highly collectable. The history of meteoritics is closely coupled to the one of meteorite collecting and while much work has already been done on this con-nection (e.g., McCall et al., 2006), no systematic anal-ysis has ever been made. Two different collecting be-haviours exist, relating to the processes of curating or possessing. The curator, a scientist or historian, can be seen as the gatherer and protector of the information, or facts, contained in a collection or set of objects, such as meteorites. The collector is anyone passionate about his collection or more exactly about the idea of completing a set of objects (e.g., Baudrillard, 1994).

Metacollecting refers to the act of systematically collecting interactions between different collection-objects. In this case, the collection becomes a higher-level object. The concept of metacollecting thus yields a focus shift from objects of intrinsic scientific value to objects of extrinsic socio-historical value. The “col-lection-object” is defined by its attributes of being one

specific collection prepared by one specific collector, i.e. by the information associated to the lower-level objects (or specimens) the collection contains. In or-der to better focus this pilot study, only the curating aspects are considered with the collection of collec-tion-objects becoming a source of information on the socio-historical aspects of the collector’s world, hence relating to object biography and more generally to prosopography and material culture (Allen, 1990; Al-berti, 2005; Miller, 1987). Prosopography, an exam-ple of which will be given in the next section, can be defined as the collective study of people’s lives through history, or, in the case of meteorite collections, the study of the socio-historical aspects of meteoritics and planetary science. This includes the analysis of the interactions between researchers and institutions via meteorite exchanges through history.

The use of collections in historical research on nat-ural history, science, or technology is well established with collections referred to as non-printed biographi-cal sources, at the same level as non-published docu-ments such as letters or diaries (Williams, 1990; Wyse

12 Arnaud Mignan

Jackson, 1999). Prosopographical studies that use col-lection attributes are relatively rare and often consist in using the information about the collector inscribed, among other things, on specimen labels (Allen, 1990; Groom et al., 2014). This process relates to the explicit information about the source of the specimen while more information may be available, for example on anonymous labels or on cryptic (inventory) numbers or references. This potential information is rarely ex-ploited. Worse, curators and private collectors alike may discard, alter or cut old labels, and alter painted (inventory) numbers or references on the meteorite specimen itself at the time of accession, deaccession, or re-cataloguing (an act of “cultural barbarism” as coined by P. Medawar (Wyse Jackson, 1999)). The present es-say seeks therefore to inform curators on the potential socio-historical value of their meteorite specimens.

The term “metacollecting” is used to emphasize the socio-historical importance of the collection-object in comparison to the scientific importance of the collec-tion specimen (i.e., the focus shift promoted in this essay). The term generally refers to the production of (large) databases (or “collections of collections”) in a way where the specimen remains the principal ob-

ject of interest (e.g., Joseph, 2011; Balke et al., 2013; Wiedenmann et al., 2014). Studies referring to meta-collecting to describe the collecting process (within a socio-historical context) are far more rare (e.g., Sam-son, 2003). This study is concerned with the collect-ing process only to define collection-object attributes. The aim of metacollecting is then to describe the in-teractions between different collection-objects.

This study is divided into two sections. First, it provides background on prosopography and shows its value with an example of application in the history of meteorite collecting (pilot study). To the best of the author’s knowledge, this study represents the first time such a tool is being used in this collection theme. Sec-ond, it conceptualises and describes the metacollecting process including defining collection-object attributes with the help of forensic analysis methods and then in defining a socio-historical collection index (SHCI) to SHCI) to SHCIevaluate the a priori value of collection specimens in a priori value of collection specimens in a prioriterms of collection-objects. Meteorite specimens from the author’s personal collection (The Tricottet Collec-tion) are used for illustration purposes. Applicability to other collection themes is discussed at the end of this essay.

PROSOPOGRAPHY OF METEORITE COLLECTIONS (A PILOT STUDY)

Prosopography, or the collective study of people’s lives through history, requires large amounts of data to display the complexity of the social interactions and to remain statistically significant. This data is often found in the form of biographical texts, correspond-ence letters, catalogues, specimen cards and more rare-ly collection specimens themselves. Network analysis is nowadays commonly used to visualize social group-ings in prosopography (Groom et al., 2014; Spary, 2008).

To emphasize the promise of prosopography in the history of meteoritics and meteorite collecting, a cor-respondence network analysis is made from one collec-tion catalogue. The author selected the 1885 catalogue of the meteorite collection (Koch, 1885) of today the Mineralogical Museum of the Babes-Bolyai University (UBB), Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Note that the muse-um was created by uniting in 1900 the mineralogical collections of the Transylvanian Museum Society with the collections of the Department of Mineralogy and Geology of the “Franz Joseph” University, founded in 1872. The collections of the Society were in fact cu-rated by the university professors, such as Prof. Antal Koch, and used for teaching purposes since the found-ing of the university (pers. comm., L. Zaharia, 2015).

Figure 1 shows the prosopographical network of in-stitutional meteorite exchange reconstructed from Koch (1885) (see also Table 1). Due to the limited data available, it should be considered as a pilot study. One may infer from Figure 1 that the UBB meteor-ite collection had a regional interaction sphere in the late nineteenth century with institutional connections exclusively with the Western European countries. Its main sources of specimens were the Vienna Court mineral collection (22 meteorites / of 87 meteorites obtained from institutions), followed by the Berlin University (18/87) and the British museum (15/87). Although the UBB collection contained some me-teorites from the Russian Empire, no link with any specific Russian institution is visible. Interactions with the Paris Natural History Museum also appear limited compared to the number of French meteorites in the UBB collection. Figure 2 shows that the UBB collec-tion managed to obtain meteorites from most parts of the world by the intermediary of other European in-stitutions, which had a more global interaction sphere. This second prosopographical network assumes that the various collections obtained their specimens di-rectly from the countries where they were recovered. One should refrain from matching these observations

13Metacollecting and use of “collection-objects” in prosopographical studies of meteorite collections

and the ones that do only give access to a limited frac-tion of the specimen history (while most institutions also have “inventory books” containing much more detailed information than reported in published cata-logues, their access remains limited). To complete the story, one must track the path of specific specimens, which leads to the main section of this study, the defi-nition of the collection-object and of its use.

with the historical context of this period since the data is far too limited to obtain a complete view.

The aim of this pilot study is to illustrate how information contained in meteorite collection cata-logues could be combined to build more or less com-plex prosopographical networks. Most collection catalogues are published, making them highly valu-able for research purposes. However, not all provide information on the provenance of their specimens,

METEORITE METACOLLECTING

The collection-object

The term collection-object is here introduced as an abstract object that can be represented by the speci-men or subset of specimens that epitomizes the entire collection. It is described by its attributes of being one specific collection prepared by one specific collector (or curator within a specific period of time), i.e. by the information associated to the specimens the collection contains. Those are related to the way the specimens

are collected, catalogued, stored and displayed, corre-sponding to the objective part of the collecting proc-ess. Collection themes and filtering processes related to psychological aspects (the subjective part of collect-ing) are not considered.

The two main attributes considered for this study are inventory numbers and specimen labels. Addi-tional attributes could also include specimen contain-ers (jars, vials, pill boxes, clamshell boxes, etc.), speci-

Fig. 1. Regional prosopographical network of institutional meteorite exchanges in a geographical map view, reconstructed using the UBB collection catalogue from 1885 (see Table 1). The thickness of the con-nection lines represents the relative number of exchanges

14 Arnaud Mignan

men stands and any other characteristics not specific to the specimen but to the collection itself. As a first example, Figure 3 shows some meteorite specimens deaccessioned from the UBB collection within the last 10 years and presently part of The Tricottet Col-lection. They all carry a UBB inventory number and are accompanied by a modern UBB label. The labels provide obvious information about the provenance of the specimens and help targeting the right catalogue where the match between inventory number and speci-men is given (here, Bedelean et al., 1979). If the labels were missing, an erudite investigator (and evidently

the UBB collection curator) could still recognize the typical style of the UBB inventory number made of white, relatively bulky paint, starting with an “I.” for stony meteorites and an “II.” for iron and stony-iron meteorites. This numbering style epitomizes the UBB cataloguing system used from the late 1970’s onward. Another example is shown in Figure 4. In this case, the meteorite specimen is accompanied by a Friedrich Wöhler (1800-1882) label and carries a small piece of paint. Close examination indicates that it is made of two layers of different colours, white over red. This style is characteristic of stony specimens in the J. Law-

Fig. 2. Global prosopographical network of meteorite exchanges derived from the UBB catalogue from 1885 (and assuming that the various institutions have obtained the meteorite specimens directly from the country where they were recovered; see Table 1). The thickness of the connection lines represents the relative number of exchanges

Fig. 3. Three meteorite specimens deaccessioned from the UBB collection in last 10 years, each with painted inventory number and modern label. From left to right: Krasnojarsk (SHCI = 2+2+2+2 (sketch and trade document) = 8), Mocs (SHCI = 1+1+1+1 (trade document) = 4), and Stan-nern, incorrectly catalogued as Mocs in the late 1970’s (SHCI = 1+1+1+3 (trade document, porcelain plate and numbered glass vial) = 6). All samples and documents from The Tricottet Collection

15Metacollecting and use of “collection-objects” in prosopographical studies of meteorite collections

rence Smith’s (1818-1883) collection as proved by the match with a complete painted number observed on a meteorite specimen known to originate from the Smith collection (see Fig. 4) (note that Smith used a different inventory system for irons (Cressy, 2008) – the Smith collecting system is described in Marvin (1884)). Returning to the three meteorites shown in Figure 3, the UBB collection-object can be any of these specimens since each one of those carry the UBB characteristic marking. The fact that they represent three different locations and meteorite types (Krasno-jarsk pallasite, Mocs chondrite, Stannern achondrite) does not matter.

Tracking the historical chain-of-custody of natural history specimens may require years of experience and the development of a personal database where all the collection objective attributes are stored. The collec-tion identification process could be significantly im-proved by the development of a comprehensive digital database, which would contain inventory numbers, labels and additional information characteristic of dif-ferent collections. This differs considerably from ex-isting databases that focus on the collection specimens themselves and in which labels contain some auxiliary information where only the provenance name is used (note that Allen (1990) considered specimen labels as an “unorthodox source” of information for prosopo-graphy). The example of Figure 4 already proved the potential of forensic analysis. In this context, here is a non-exhaustive list of properties that should be con-sidered to describe a collection-object:1) Text:

a) Meaning: Language, names, inventory num-bers, etc.

b) Handwritten or typed.c) Lettering and numbering characteristics: Up-

percase vs. lowercase, cursive vs. non-cursive, font, proportion, slant and spacing, punctua-tion, etc.

d) Physical characteristics: Colour, size, etc.e) Additional characteristics: Drawings, signa-

tures, acronyms, symbols, etc.f ) Author: Name, title, association with collec-

tion, etc.2) Medium:

a) Method: Writing, printing, hard stamping, glu-ing, etc.

b) Material: Ink, paint, paper, stamp, fabric, etc.c) Additional characteristics: Paint thickness, pa-

per quality, etc.d) Combinations of methods and materials.These properties should be illustrated from a selec-

tion of collection-objects listed in a database to facili-

tate future comparisons and collection identifications. So far, interest in these attributes is only found in journals with limited or no peer-review (e.g., Cressy, 2008; Mignan & Reed, 2012).

A collection of collection-objects is similar to any other type of collection, except for its more abstract higher-level meaning. A meteoriticist studies meteor-ites. Analysis of their properties, such as their mineral-ogy and composition, tells him what type of meteorite it is. The larger set of specimens in the collection he is in charge of may provide him with some insight into various planetary processes. In comparison, a metacol-lector (possibly a historian of science or of material culture) would study collection-objects. Analysis of their attributes using forensic analysis methods would tell him what collection it is. The larger set of collec-tion-objects may provide him with some insight into the socio-historical aspects of collecting. To extend the analogy, while a meteoriticist can differentiate between troilite and cohenite minerals, a scholar in metacollection can differentiate between UBB and J. L. Smith inventory numbers.

Fig. 4. Forensic paint analysis on a fragment of the Ensisheim meteor-ite (SHCI = 3+1+1+0 = 5). The patch of paint is compared to the inventory number 70 painted on a Pultusk meteorite specimen known to be part of the J. Lawrence Smith collection (see e.g., figure 5 in Mignan (2011); Smith collection catalogue in Marvin (1884)). Sample and label from The Tricottet Collection

16 Arnaud Mignan

Socio-Historical Collection Index (SHCI)SHCI)SHCI

The goal of metacollecting, which is to identify and analyse, from collection specimens, the links between different individuals including museum curators, re-searchers, dealers and others, is not new. Object bi-ography, promoted by Alberti (2005), emphasizes the importance of object history tracking to reconstruct histories of science by embedding the study of scien-tific practice in material culture. The specimen loses in this process its intrinsic value by acting as a medium for relationships between individuals (and to a certain extent, between institutions). Objects are likely to pass through the hands of a number of people, from unknown finders and collectors (e.g., farmers) to well-known institutions via private collectors and dealers (Wyse Jackson, 1999; Samson, 2003; Alberti, 2005; Bennett, 2005).

The concepts of metacollection and collection-ob-ject formalize the idea of object biography by provid-ing some explicit descriptive rules (see list of prop-erties given above). Now a tool is presented to help evaluating the a priori socio-historical value of collec-tion specimens from a collection-object perspective. It is referred to as the socio-historical collection index or SHCI. It applies to any given collection specimen and SHCI. It applies to any given collection specimen and SHCIis defined as follows:

SHCI = SHCI = SHCI NprovNprovN + prov + prov NlabNlabN + lab + lab NnumNnumN + NmiscNmiscN (1)misc (1)misc

with NprovNprovN the number of verified provenances, prov the number of verified provenances, prov NlabNlabNthe number of labels,

provthe number of labels,

provNnumNnumN the number of different

inventory numbers (directly on the specimen, on label(s), etc.), and NmiscNmiscN the number of additional mis-misc the number of additional mis-misccellaneous collection attributes affixed to the speci-men (container(s), photograph(s), drawing(s), short note(s), letter(s), article(s), etc. – excluding collection catalogues, as explained below). The term NlabNlabN + lab + lab NnumNnumN+ NmiscNmiscN represents the attributes of the collection(s) and misc represents the attributes of the collection(s) and misc

NprovNprovN the number of collection-objects. Being abstract prov the number of collection-objects. Being abstract proventities, several collection-objects may be represented

proventities, several collection-objects may be represented

prov

on a same meteorite specimen.The aim of the proposed index is twofold: (i) to

rapidly assess the potential socio-historical value of the specimen in disregard of its intrinsic scientific value and (ii) to emphasize the importance of collec-tion attributes (the collection-object) such as labels and inventory numbers in this assessment. A SHCIof zero means that the specimen is of unknown origin and has no collection attribute. A high SHCI is syn-SHCI is syn-SHCIonymous of a factual chain-of-custody if NprovNprovN > 1. prov > 1. provThe SHCI can be updated anytime new informa-

prov can be updated anytime new informa-

provSHCI can be updated anytime new informa-SHCI

tion comes to light. To get a reliable SHCI value, the SHCI value, the SHCInumber of collection catalogues in which the speci-men is listed should not be counted in NmiscNmiscN since misc since miscthis number would then depend on the frequency of catalogue releases, which varies significantly from institution to institution (knowing that (unfortu-nately) in the last decades most institutions no longer publish such catalogues). Similarly, a chain of letters discussing the specific specimen should count as (+) 0+0+0+1 (see Eq. 1) whatever the number of letters in the chain is. Photocopies of labels or other docu-ments should be counted in the SHCI since they may SHCI since they may SHCIcontain valuable information otherwise lost for re-search. However, duplicate labels do not count if they do not provide any additional information. When a specimen is known to originate from a given institu-tion (such as a museum) under the supervision of a given curator, it only counts as (+) 1+0+0+0. Contain-ers should only be counted if their characteristics are unusual, i.e., if there is a chance they may be retraced to a specific source (i.e., basic cardboard boxes do not count). The SHCI only provides an a prioriSHCI only provides an a prioriSHCI socio-historical value in the sense that different collections are treated equally although some may be historically more important than others (collection weighting is out of the scope of the present essay – Yet, the author would a priori not count in the SHCI the labels from SHCI the labels from SHCIprivate collections more recent than c. 1990, i.e. from the Internet era).

Here is an example on how the SHCI is calculated SHCI is calculated SHCIfor the Ensisheim and Krasnojarsk meteorite speci-mens shown in Figures 3 and 4:

Ensisheim specimen: SHCI = 3 (Friedrich Wöhler, SHCI = 3 (Friedrich Wöhler, SHCIJ. Lawrence Smith, and Harvard University) + 1 (label from Friedrich Wöhler) + 1 (partial number from J. Lawrence Smith) + 0 = 5.

Krasnojarsk specimen: Krasnojarsk specimen: Krasnojarsk SHCI = 2 (Berlin Universi-SHCI = 2 (Berlin Universi-SHCIty, Babes-Bolyai University) + 2 (origin undetermined label and UBB label) + 2 (unidentified “3” number and UBB number) + 2 (sketch of the specimen on the

Fig. 5. Meteorite specimens with multiple (painted) inventory num-bers. Left: Pultusk (SHCI = 3 (H. A. Ward, Field Natural History Museum, R. D. Evans) +0+3+0 = 6). Right: Forest City (SHCI = 4 (H. A. Ward, Field Natural History Museum, G. Huss/Ameri-can Meteorite Laboratory, University of New Mexico) +1 (UNM) +3+0 = 8). Samples from The Tricottet Collection

17Metacollecting and use of “collection-objects” in prosopographical studies of meteorite collections

Fig. 6. Space-time diagrams describing the object biography of the six meteorite specimens shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5. The spatial migrations are approximated by the longitude of the collection location (x-axis). Tri-angles represent the starting point of the biographies (i.e., for meteorites, their place and date of find/fall). Solid circles represent milestones in the biography of a specimen with robust information available on the specimen’s whereabouts. Open circles represent valuable information but with no direct references to the specimen itself. Information from: Bedelean et al. (1979); Evans et al. (1939); Farrington (1895; 1916); Francis & Phipps (1978); Huntington (1887); Koch (1882; 1885); Marvin (1884); Palache (1926); Scott et al. (1990); Ward (1892; 1901; 1904).

18 Arnaud Mignan

Table 1. Late nineteenth century UBB meteorite collection catalogue (simplified and translated from Koch (1885)). Meteorite names in italics are not official (i.e., they are synonyms or contain typographical errors).

Koch’s no. Meteorite (Country ISO code)

ProvenanceHungarian English translation(a) Stony

1 Ensisheim (FR) British museum és Berlini egyetem British museum & Berlin university2 Sienna (IT) Bolognai egyetem Bologna university3 Wold Cottage (GB) British museum British museum4a

L’Aigle (FR)Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection

4b Berlini egyetem Berlin university5 Alais (FR) Bolognai egyetem Bologna university6 Timochin (RU) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection7 Weston (US) Göttingeni egyetem Göttingen university8 Cusignano (IT) Bolognai egyetem Bologna university9a Stannern (CZ) J.G. Neumann, Graz J.G. Neumann, Graz9b Stannern (CZ) Berlini egyetem Berlin university10 Lissa (CZ) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection11 Charsonville (FR) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection12 Toulouse (FR) J. Siemaschko J. Siemaschko13a Erxleben (DE) Göttingai egyetem Göttingen university13b Erxleben (DE) Berlini egyetem Berlin university

14 Chantonnay (FR) Bécsi udv. ásványtár és párisi musée d’hist natur.

Vienna Court mineral collection & Paris nat. hist. museum

15 Juvinas (FR) Bécsi udv. ásványtár és berlini egyetem Vienna Court mineral collection & Berlin university

16* Futtehpur (IN) British museum British museum17 Honolulu (US) British museum British museum18 Pawlograd (UA)Pawlograd (UA)Pawlograd Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection19 Richmond (US) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection20 Cold Bokkeweldt (ZA)Cold Bokkeweldt (ZA)Cold Bokkeweldt Göttingai egyetem Göttingen university21 Chateau Renard (FR) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection22 Miljana (HR)Miljana (HR)Miljana Zágrábi egyetem Zagreb university23 Bishopville (US) Berlini egyetem Berlin university24 Blaauw-Capel (NL)Blaauw-Capel (NL)Blaauw-Capel Utrechti egyetem Utrecht university25* Cabarras County (US)Cabarras County (US)Cabarras County J. Siemaschko J. Siemaschko26 Shalka (IN) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection27† MezöMezöMez madaras (RO)madaras (RO)madaras Br. Kemény Ignácz ajándéka Br. Kemény Ignácz gift28 Bremervörde DE) Göttingai egyetem Göttingen university29 Trenzano (IT) Bolognai egyetem Bologna university30 Parnallee (IN) British museum British museum31* Kaba (HU) Debreczeni collegium Debrecen College32 Ohaba (RO) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection33* Quenggouk (MM) J. Siemaschko J. Siemaschko34 Clarac (FR)Clarac (FR)Clarac British museum British museum35 MontréMontréMontr jeauéjeaué (FR) Párisi Mus. d’hist. natur. Paris nat. hist. museum36 New Concord (US) Bolognai egyetem Bologna university37 Dhurmsala (IN) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection38 Butsura (IN) British museum British museum39 Orgeuil (FR) Párisi Mus. d’hist. natur. Paris nat. hist. museum

40†ab Knyahinya (UA) Már 1872-ben megvolt (Vásároltatott) There was already in 1872 (bought derivative)

41aPultusk (PL)

Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection41bc Bécsi egyet. petrog. int. Petrographic Institute, Vienna university42 Daniels Kuil (ZA) British museum British museum43 Hessle (SE) Stockholmi Riksmus. Stockholm national museum44 Tjabé (ID) Haarlemi egyetem Haarlem university45 Ibbenbürren (DE) Berlini egyetem Berlin university

19Metacollecting and use of “collection-objects” in prosopographical studies of meteorite collections

Koch’s no. Meteorite (Country ISO code)

ProvenanceHungarian English translation

46 Orvinio (IT) Bolognai egyetem Bologna university47 Khairpur (PK) British museum British museum48 Homestead (US) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection49 Ställdalen (SE) Stockholmi Riksmus. Stockholm national museum50a

Soko Banja (RS)Budapesti egyetem Budapest university

50b Dr. Mártonti Lajos Dr. Louis Mártonti51 Nogaya (AR)Nogaya (AR)Nogaya Berlini egyetem Berlin university52a

Mocs, Kolozsm Erdély (RO)Csobánczy Pál gyüjt. Paul Csobánczy coll.

52b Dr. Mártonti Lajos aj. Dr. Louis Mártonti gift52c Dr. Herbich Fer. gyüj Dr. F. Herbich coll.53 Mocs, Palatka (RO) Dr. Primies Gy. gyüj Dr. G. Primies coll.54*a

Mocs, Keszü (RO)Mike Lajostól véve. Mike Lajostól account

54b Csobánczy Páltól véve. Paul Csobánczy account55ab Mocs, Vajda-Kamarás (RO) Gr. Bethlen Dániel aj Daniel G. Bethlen gift56ab,e,g

Mocs, Báré Kolozsm (RO)

Dr. Herbich Fer. gyüj Dr. F. Herbich coll.56c Dr. Koch Antal gyüj Dr. Antal Koch coll.56d Csobánczy P.-tól véve. Paul Csobánczy account56f Dr. Primies. Gy. gyüj Dr. G. Primies coll.57 Mocs, Marokháza (RO) Csobánczy P.-tól véve. Paul Csobánczy account58a,df,j,n,v

Mocs, Gyulatelke (RO)

Naláczy Farkas ajánd. Farkas Naláczy gift58b,su Naláczy Farkas gyüjt. Farkas Naláczy coll.58c Naláczy Ödön ajánd. Odon Naláczy gift58g,i,km,o,qr Dr. Koch Antal gyüjt. Dr. Antal Koch coll.58h,p Dr. Herbich Fer. gyüjt. Dr. F. Herbich coll.59ad,h

Mocs, Visa (RO)Dr. Koch Antal gyüjt. Dr. Antal Koch coll.

59eg,i Benke J. ajánd. J. Benke gift60* Pawlowska (RU)Pawlowska (RU)Pawlowska J. Siemaschko J. Siemaschko61* Alfianello (IT) L. Bombicci tanár Prof. L. Bombicci

(b) Stony-iron62a

Krasnojarsk (RU)British museum British museum

62b Dr. A. Krantz Dr. A. Krantz62c Berlini egyetem Berlin university63 Imalac (CL)Imalac (CL)Imalac Berlini egyetem Berlin university64a

Hainholz (DE)Berlini egyetem Berlin university

64b Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection65 Atacama (BO)Atacama (BO)Atacama Bécsi egyet. petrog. int. Petrographic Institute, Vienna university66 Breitenbach (?)Breitenbach (?)Breitenbach British museum British museum67 Estherville (US) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection

(c) Iron68a

Toluca (MX)Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection

68b Budapesti egyetem. Budapest university69 Xiquipilco (MX) Bonni egyetem. Bonn university70 Zacatecas (MX) Bonni egyetem. Bonn university

71 Jóreménység foka “Cape of Good Hope “ (ZA) Haarlemi egyetem. Haarlem university

72 Jóreménység foka (ZA) Berlini egyetem. Berlin university73 Red river (US) Bonni egyetem. Bonn university74a

Lénártó (SK)Nemz. muzeum Bpest. Hungarian national museum, Budapest

74b British museum British museum75 Bolson de Mapimi (MX)Bolson de Mapimi (MX)Bolson de Mapimi Dr. A. Krantz Dr. A. Krantz76 Tarapaca (CL) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection

77 Cosby Crack? “Cosby’s Creek” Cosby Crack? “Cosby’s Creek” Cosby Crack?(US) Berlini egyetem. Berlin university

78aSzlanicza (SK)Szlanicza (SK)Szlanicza

Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection78b Berlini egyetem. Berlin university

20 Arnaud Mignan

reverse of the origin undetermined label and original UBB trade document) = 8.

Importantly, it is a meteorite collector and deal-er who has confirmed that the Ensisheim specimen had been deaccessioned from the Harvard University (pers. comm., B. Kroth, 2013). There is however no documentation (label, number, trade document, etc.) confirming the Harvard provenance. The informa-tion provided by the dealer is valuable and validated by other sources (e.g., Huntington, 1887), contribut-ing to (+)1+0+0+0 in the SHCI, but is less valuable SHCI, but is less valuable SHCIthan if it was properly documented (case (+)1+ ≥0 + ≥0 + ≥0). The Berlin University provenance of the Krasnojarsk specimen is given in the UBB catalogue from 1885 (Koch, 1885). The old label, number, and sketch (Fig. 3) increase the SHCI but so far could not SHCI but so far could not SHCIbe confirmed to originate from the Berlin collection (pers. comm., A. Greshake, 2015). The numbers, la-bels, and other documents associated with a collection specimen provide a unique way to “describe its biog-raphy”. The higher the SHCI is, the larger the chance SHCI is, the larger the chance SHCIis to properly describe its journey from its landing and finding on Earth to its current collection location.

Specimens with NprovNprovN > 1 and with a relatively high prov > 1 and with a relatively high provSHCI are representative of multiple collection-objects

prov are representative of multiple collection-objects

provSHCI are representative of multiple collection-objects SHCIand, as such, can be used as inputs in prosopographi-

cal networks. The meteorite specimens from Figures 3 and 4 are now considered in more details together with two other specimens shown in Figure 5 (Pultusk and Forest City meteorite specimens with SHCI of SHCI of SHCI6 and 8, respectively). The biographies of these six specimens are described in Figure 6 using space-time diagrams. Each biography is represented by one path. A high SHCI a priori indicates a well-described biog-SHCI a priori indicates a well-described biog-SHCIraphy, which can be further investigated by retriev-ing additional information from collection catalogues and other resources but also from specimen mass to be tracked in the catalogues (see comments in Figure 6). Specimen mass is particularly important here and can also be used to confirm that the specimen is cor-rectly associated to its label. As a side note, if the mass does not match or is not given on the label, the label may be incorrectly associated to that specimen. There-fore, labels should always be considered with extreme care (other specimen characteristics such as the shape are also useful for specimen tracking and contradic-tory information checking). The space-time diagrams produced here should be considered as working docu-ments which can be updated as new information be-comes available. All paths could then be combined into prosopographical networks in a standardized way.

Koch’s no. Meteorite (Country ISO code)

ProvenanceHungarian English translation

79aSeeläsgen (PL)

Dr. A. Krantz Dr. A. Krantz79b Bonni egyetem. Bonn university79c Berlini egyetem. Berlin university80 Chesterville (US) Berlini egyetem. Berlin university81 Schwetz (PL) Berlini egyetem. Berlin university82* Ruff’s Mountain (US) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection83 Tazelwell (US)Tazelwell (US)Tazelwell British museum British museum84 Sarepta (RU) Berlini egyetem. Berlin university85 Denton County (US) British museum British museum86 Obernkirchen (DE) British museum British museum87* Cohahuila (MX)Cohahuila (MX)Cohahuila Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection88ac

Ovifak (GL)Koppenhágai egyetem Copenhagen university

88d Stockholmi Reichsmu. Stockholm national museum89* Bates Co. (US) Bécsi udv. ásványtár Vienna Court mineral collection90 S-ta Catharina (BR) Párisi Mus. d’hist. nat. Paris nat. hist. museum

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of collection specimens in socio-historical research has already been well addressed. However, since collection specimens are at the triple junction between science, curation, and history, in-vestigating the socio-historical aspects of these curated scientific specimens remains a challenge (e.g., Wyse

Jackson, 1999; Alberti, 2005; Bennett, 2005). Indeed, the fundamental focus of natural history museums re-mains on science and education (Danks, 1991) and until recently, inventories, catalogues, and specimens themselves had attracted little interest beyond anti-quarians (Spary, 2008).

21Metacollecting and use of “collection-objects” in prosopographical studies of meteorite collections

The goal of the present study was to formalize the socio-historical study of collection specimens by the term “metacollecting”. Definition of the “collec-tion-object” emphasizes the importance of collection specimens, not for their intrinsic scientific value, but for their characteristics of being part of a given col-lection. With the collection-object explicitly defined, one can better describe its characteristics. The various examples shown above prove that these characteristics (inventory numbers, labels, etc.; Figs. 3-5) require the use of forensic analysis methods, not to discover the culprit of a crime but the assembler and history of a collection. A database of collection attributes would represent the next step toward the generalisation of metacollecting. By simply testing the newly proposed socio-historical collection index (SHCI) to rapidly SHCI) to rapidly SHCIevaluate the a priori socio-historical value of their specimens, curators and private collectors alike would be more inclined to preserve collection attributes. Such increased awareness would in turn facilitate met-

acollecting and associated activities such as prosopo-graphy (using for instance correspondence networks and other space-time diagrams; Figs. 1, 2, and 6).

The concept of collection-object was illustrated in the case of meteorite collecting. Meteorites have in this context the advantage of being rare relative to most other collectibles and are therefore often listed indi-vidually in catalogues. This is rarely the case for terres-trial rock specimens for instance, making such exercise of tracking specimen history more difficult in this case (meteorites only represent a small fraction of all speci-mens held in natural history museums; Petersen et al., 1994). A lack of provenance details will always hamper in-depth analyses but considering metacollecting as a worthwhile activity on its own would likely improve future curating efforts into tracking whichever speci-men history remains. It does not only apply to natural history collections but to any type of collection since the concept of collection-object makes any specimen, natural or artificial, part of material culture.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Editor Tadeusz Przylibski as well as reviewers Luminita Zaharia, Andrzej Pilski and Ludovic Ferrière for their comments. All the collection specimens used

in this essay are from The Tricottet Collection (http://www.thetricottetcollection.com) of which the author is the owner and curator.

REFERENCES

Alberti S.J.M.M., 2005 – Objects and the Museum. Isis, 96, 559-571.

Allen D.E., 1990 – Arcana ex multitudine: prosopography as a re-search technique. Archives of Natural History, 17, 349-359.

Balke M., Schmidt S., Hausmann A., Toussaint E.F.A., Bergsten J., Buffington M., Häuser C.L., Kroupa A., Hagedorn G., Riedel A., Polaszek A., Ubaidillah R., Krogmann L., Zwick A., Fikácek M., Hájek J., Michat M.C., Dietrich C., La Salle J., Mantle B., Ng P.K.L., Hobern D., 2013 – Biodiversity into your hands – A call for a virtual global natural history ‘metacollection’. Frontiers in Zoology, 10, 55.

Baudrillard J., 1994 – The system of collecting. [in:] Elsner J., Cardinal R. (eds.) – The Cultures of Collecting, London, 7-24.The Cultures of Collecting, London, 7-24.The Cultures of Collecting

Bedelean I., Ghergari L., Marza I., Motiu A., Muresan I., Tirlea I., 1979 – The catalogue of the meteoritic matters collection from the Mineralogical Museum of the University of Cluj-Napoca. Studia Univ. Babes-Bolyai, Geologia-Geographia, XXIV, 3-23.

Bennett J., 2005 – Museums and the History of Science: Practi-tioner’s Postscript. Isis, 96, 602-608.

Cressy F., 2008 – A Different Meteorite Hunt Story: Discovering the Collection History of a Historical Specimen. Meteorite, 14 (1), 34-36.

Danks H.V., 1991 – Museum collections: Fundamental values and modern problems. Collection Forum, 7, 95-111.

Evans R.D., Hastings J.L., Schumb W.C., 1939 – Radioactive determination of protactinium in siliceous terrestrial and meteoritic material. Geological Series of the Field Museum of Natural History, 7 (5), 71-78.

Farrington O.C., 1895 – Handbook and Catalogue of the Me-teorite Collection. Field Columbian Museum pub. 3 Geol. series, 1 (1).

Farrington O.C., 1916 – Catalogue of the Collections of Mete-orites. Field Museum of Natural History pub. 188 geol. series, 3 (10).

Francis C.A., Phipps, M.A., 1978 – Harvard University Catalogue of Meteorite. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Groom Q.J., O’Reilly C., Humphrey T., 2014 – Herbarium specimens reveal the exchange network of British and Irish botanists. New Journal of Botany, 4, 95-103.

Huntington O.W., 1887 – Catalogue of All Recorded Meteorites, with a Description of the Specimens in the Harvard College Collection, including the Cabinet of the Late J. Lawrence Smith. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 23, 37-110.

Joseph L., 2011 – Museum collections in ornithology: today’s record of avian biodiversity for tomorrow’s world. Emu, 111, i-xii.

Koch A., 1882 – Bericht über den am 3, Februar l. J. stattge-fundenen Meteorsteinfall von Mocs in Siebenbürgen. Sitzb. der k. Akad. der Wissensch. I. Abth., 85, 116-132.

Koch A., 1885 – Az Erdélyi Országos Múzeum Meteorit-gyüjteményének. ErdéErdéErd lyi Mélyi Mé úlyi Múlyi M zeum-Egylet Orv. Term. Tud. SzakosztáSzakosztáSzakoszt lya, Kolozsvár, 1-7.

Marvin J.B., 1884 – Original Researches in Mineralogy and Chemistry by J. Lawrence Smith. J.P. Morton, Louisville, 611.

McCall G.J.H., Bowden A.J., Howarth R.J. (eds.), 2006 – The History of Meteoritics and Key Meteorite Collections: Fire-

22 Arnaud Mignan

Publishers: Wrocław University of Technology, Faculty of Geoengineering, Mining and Geology Polish Meteorite Society

balls, Falls and Finds. Geological Society, Special Publica-tions, London.

Mignan A., 2011 – Claims of Indigenous Life Forms in Meteor-ites: A Short Review. Meteorite, 17 (4), 34-38.

Mignan A., Reed B., 2012 – The Monnig Meteorite Collection Numbers Revisited. Meteorite, 18 (3), 10-13.

Miller D., 1987 – Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford.

Palache, C., 1926 – Catalogue of the Collection of Meteorites in the Mineralogical Museum of Harvard University. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., 61, 151-159.

Petersen O.V., Deliens M., Kampf A.R., Schubnel H.-J., Suther-land F.L. (eds.), 1994 – World Directory of Mineral Collec-tions. The Mineralogical Record Inc., 3rd ed., Tucson.

Samson J.O., 2003 – Cultures of collecting: Maori curio collect-ing in Murihiku, 1865-1975. PhD thesis at University of Otago, New Zealand.

Scott E.R.R., Keil K., Smetana A.M., Pun, A., 1990 – Fourth catalog of the meteorite collection of the Institute of Meteo-ritics, University of New Mexico. UNM Institute of Meteorit-ics Special Publication, 24.

Spary E.C., 2008 – Botanical Networks revisited. [in:] Dauser R., Hächler S., Kempe M., Stuber M. (eds.) – Wissen im Netz: Botanik un Pfanzentransfer in europäischen Korresponden-znetzen des 18. Jahrhunderts, Akademie Verlag, 47-64.

Ward H.A., 1892 – The Ward Collection of Meteorites and Speci-mens for Sale. Ward’s Natural Science Establishment, Ro-chester.

Ward H.A., 1901 – The Ward-Coonley Collection of Meteorites. Chicago.

Ward H.A., 1904 – The Ward-Coonley Collection of Meteorites. Maesh, Atkins & Curtis, Chicago.

Wiedenmann R.N., Dowling A.P.G., Barnes J.K., 2014 – What Is the Value of Your Insect Collection?. American Entomologist, American Entomologist, American Entomologist60, 101-104.

Williams R.B., 1990 – Who, what, where, when and why: the ele-ments of history. Archives of Natural History, 17, 263-282.

Wyse Jackson P.N., 1999 – Geological Museums and their Col-lections: Rich Sources for Historians of Geology. Annals of Science, 56, 417-431.